
==== Front
PLoS Negl Trop Dis
PLoS Negl Trop Dis
plos
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
1935-2727
1935-2735
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

39231158
10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233
PNTD-D-24-00720
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Viruses
Arboviruses
Biology and life sciences
Organisms
Viruses
RNA viruses
Togaviruses
Alphaviruses
Chikungunya Virus
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Viral Pathogens
Togaviruses
Alphaviruses
Chikungunya Virus
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Viral Pathogens
Togaviruses
Alphaviruses
Chikungunya Virus
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Viruses
Viral Pathogens
Togaviruses
Alphaviruses
Chikungunya Virus
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Infectious Diseases
Viral Diseases
Arboviral Infections
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Immune Physiology
Antibodies
Biology and Life Sciences
Immunology
Immune System Proteins
Antibodies
Medicine and Health Sciences
Immunology
Immune System Proteins
Antibodies
Biology and Life Sciences
Biochemistry
Proteins
Immune System Proteins
Antibodies
Biology and life sciences
Organisms
Viruses
RNA viruses
Flaviviruses
Dengue Virus
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Viral Pathogens
Flaviviruses
Dengue Virus
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Viral Pathogens
Flaviviruses
Dengue Virus
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Viruses
Viral Pathogens
Flaviviruses
Dengue Virus
Biology and life sciences
Organisms
Viruses
RNA viruses
Flaviviruses
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Viral Pathogens
Flaviviruses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Viral Pathogens
Flaviviruses
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Viruses
Viral Pathogens
Flaviviruses
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Eukaryota
Animals
Vertebrates
Amniotes
Mammals
Rodents
Biology and Life Sciences
Zoology
Animals
Vertebrates
Amniotes
Mammals
Rodents
Biology and life sciences
Organisms
Viruses
RNA viruses
Flaviviruses
West Nile virus
Biology and life sciences
Microbiology
Medical microbiology
Microbial pathogens
Viral pathogens
Flaviviruses
West Nile virus
Medicine and health sciences
Pathology and laboratory medicine
Pathogens
Microbial pathogens
Viral pathogens
Flaviviruses
West Nile virus
Biology and life sciences
Organisms
Viruses
Viral pathogens
Flaviviruses
West Nile virus
Antibodies against medically relevant arthropod-borne viruses in the ubiquitous African rodent Mastomys natalensis
Antibodies against arboviruses in Mastomys natalensis from Tanzania
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7040-273X
De Kesel Wim Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Project administration Resources Software Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2 *
Vanden Broecke Bram Data curation Resources Writing – review & editing 1 3
Borremans Benny Data curation Resources Writing – review & editing 1 4
Fourchault Léa Investigation Writing – review & editing 5
Willems Elisabeth Investigation 2
Ceulemans Ann Investigation 2 6
Sabuni Christopher Resources 7
Massawe Apia Resources 7
Makundi Rhodes H. Resources 7
Leirs Herwig Project administration Resources 1
Peeters Martine Conceptualization Funding acquisition Writing – review & editing 8
Verheyen Erik Conceptualization Funding acquisition Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 5
Gryseels Sophie Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 5
Mariën Joachim Conceptualization Data curation Project administration Resources Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 6
Ariën Kevin K. Conceptualization Data curation Funding acquisition Project administration Resources Supervision Writing – review & editing 2 9 *
1 Evolutionary Ecology Group, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
2 Virology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium
3 Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
4 Wildlife Health Ecology Research Organization, San Diego, California, United States of America
5 OD Taxonomy & Phylogeny, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium
6 Virus Ecology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium
7 Institute of Pest Management, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania
8 TransVIHMI, University of Montpellier, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), INSERM, Montpellier, France
9 Department of Biomedical sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Wang Ran Editor
Beijing Children’s Hospital Capital Medical University, CHINA
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: wim.dekesel@uantwerpen.be (WDK); karien@itg.be (KKA)
4 9 2024
9 2024
18 9 e001223322 5 2024
20 8 2024
© 2024 De Kesel et al
2024
De Kesel et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Over the past decades, the number of arthropod-borne virus (arbovirus) outbreaks has increased worldwide. Knowledge regarding the sylvatic cycle (i.e., non-human hosts/environment) of arboviruses is limited, particularly in Africa, and the main hosts for virus maintenance are unknown. Previous studies have shown the presence of antibodies against certain arboviruses (i.e., chikungunya-, dengue-, and Zika virus) in African non-human primates and bats. We hypothesize that small mammals, specifically rodents, may function as amplifying hosts in anthropogenic environments. The detection of RNA of most arboviruses is complicated by the viruses’ short viremic period within their hosts. An alternative to determine arbovirus hosts is by detecting antibodies, which can persist several months. Therefore, we developed a high-throughput multiplex immunoassay to detect antibodies against 15 medically relevant arboviruses. We used this assay to assess approximately 1,300 blood samples of the multimammate mouse, Mastomys natalensis from Tanzania. In 24% of the samples, we detected antibodies against at least one of the tested arboviruses, with high seroprevalences of antibodies reacting against dengue virus serotype one (7.6%) and two (8.4%), and chikungunya virus (6%). Seroprevalence was higher in females and increased with age, which could be explained by inherent immunity and behavioral differences between sexes, and the increased chance of exposure to an arbovirus with age. We evaluated whether antibodies against multiple arboviruses co-occur more often than randomly and found that this may be true for some members of the Flaviviridae and Togaviridae. In conclusion, the development of an assay against a wide diversity of medically relevant arboviruses enabled the analysis of a large sample collection of one of the most abundant African small mammals. Our findings highlight that Mastomys natalensis is involved in the transmission cycle of multiple arboviruses and provide a solid foundation to better understand the role of this ubiquitous rodent in arbovirus outbreaks.

Author summary

One of the main causes of zoonotic related human morbidity and mortality is the transmission of arthropod-borne viruses such as dengue virus, Yellow Fever virus, and chikungunya virus. These viruses cannot only infect humans but also livestock, pets, and wildlife, though our understanding of their non-human hosts remains limited. Rodents are thought to be an important host for these viruses because they can be abundant, often live near humans, and some are already known to be viral hosts. However, research has focused mostly on non-human primates, neglecting other potential wild hosts. To address this gap, we have developed a high-throughput antibody test to screen rodent blood against 15 different arboviruses. Our findings reveal that Mastomys natalensis, a common African rodent species, carries antibodies that (cross-)react against these viruses. We hypothesize that immunologically naïve juveniles may drive transmission, particularly during population outbreaks. These outbreaks coincide with environmental conditions that are favorable for mosquitoes, thus increasing the risk of spillover to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Understanding the role of rodents in arbovirus transmission dynamics is crucial for mitigating zoonotic disease risks.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100012285 Departement Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie G054820N Ariën Kevin K. http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100012285 Departement Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie 1171023N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7040-273X
Kesel Wim De This study was funded by The Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) through the Senior research project G054820N (to KKA, EV and MP) and PhD fellowship 1171023N (to WDK) (https://www.fwo.be/en/). WDK received a salary from the Senior research project G054820N for the year 2020-2021 and is currently paid from the PhD fellowship 1171023N. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. PLOS Publication Stagevor-update-to-uncorrected-proof
Publication Update2024-09-16
Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The African continent harbors a diverse array of infectious diseases with profound impacts on public health, economic development, and general well-being [1,2]. Diseases caused by arthropod-borne viruses, collectively known as arboviruses, are a growing threat for Africa and the rest of the world especially in relation to climate and environmental changes [3,4]. Arboviruses are a polyphyletic clade that includes several viral families, of which the most important are Flaviviridae, Togaviridae, Bunyaviridae, and Reoviridae [5]. Some well-known arboviruses, notorious for their negative effects on human health, are dengue virus, Yellow Fever virus, Zika virus, and chikungunya virus. Mosquitoes, ticks, sandflies, and midges are the primary vectors responsible for arbovirus transmission as they engage in hematophagy. These vectors do not only affect humans and livestock, but also a wide range of wildlife hosts [6–8]. Indeed, while for some arboviruses morbidity and mortality can be high in humans, similar impacts have been detected in other animals by arboviruses such as Rift Valley Fever virus in goats and sheep, West Nile virus in birds and horses, and Japanese Encephalitis virus in birds and pigs [4,5,9–11]. The (re-)emergence of arboviruses is linked to increased urbanization and global connectivity, natural genetic evolution of viruses, and adaptations of the vectors to changing climate and environments [11,12]. Emerging arboviruses pose a threat for humans, livestock, as well as wildlife, therefore it needs to be approached from a One health perspective (i.e., including human, animal, and environmental health) [13,14]. Nevertheless, our knowledge about the extent to which wild animals can serve as sylvatic hosts for human-infecting arboviruses and the natural diversity of arboviruses remains insufficient. This significantly limits our understanding of arbovirus transmission dynamics, which is required to develop more effective control measurements.

For decades, efforts have been made to identify natural reservoirs of arboviruses to monitor, prevent, and control sources of infection that pose a threat to human health [15–17]. Several studies have proposed non-human primates as significant potential reservoirs for arboviruses, as they have found arbovirus antibodies and viral RNA in this animal group [18–20]. However, other animal groups such as small mammals have often been neglected as potential arbovirus hosts [21]. Sporadic reports of arboviruses in small mammal species suggest that a more comprehensive investigation of their potential role as a host is needed [22–24].

Rodents have a number of characteristics that could make them an important hosts for several pathogens, including arboviruses [23]. Particularly the high species diversity, the fact that many species can reach high population abundances, and turnover rates. The risk of pathogen spillover to humans increases with the role of some rodents as a pest species, due to their proximity to humans [25,26]. A notable example of such a pest species is the ubiquitous rodent Mastomys natalensis, commonly known as the multimammate mouse. This species inhabits many regions of sub-Saharan Africa, with a preference for crop fields, fallow land, and typically occurring within or at the fringes of urban settlements [27,28]. In east Africa, especially in Tanzania, the reproductive cycle of M. natalensis is strongly correlated with seasonal rainfall which leads to strong seasonal fluctuations in density (20–500 individuals/hectare) and occasionally even severe population outbreaks (>1000 individuals/hectare) [29–32]. This has large ecological and societal impacts due to crop damage and influences seasonal transmission dynamics of different pathogens [33–35]. The multimammate mouse is a known host for several zoonotic pathogens such as Lassa mammarenavirus, Yersinia pestis, Leptospira interrogans, Leishmania major as well as different ecto- and endoparasites [31,36–52]. No studies have investigated or reported on arboviruses in M. natalensis, except Diagne et al. (2019) who have detected Usutu virus RNA in M. natalensis. However, other studies have reported on sporadic arbovirus detections in other rodent species in sub-Saharan Africa [22,24,53,54]. These findings, along with the ecology of M. natalensis (i.e., high abundance during population outbreaks, proximity to humans, and its status as a proven pathogen host) may suggest that this species plays a role in the natural transmission cycle of arboviruses. Consequently, M. natalensis could thus pose a risk to humans in east Africa, particularly in Tanzania as an amplifying host.

The human population in Tanzania has experienced several outbreaks of chikungunya virus, Rift Valley fever virus, West Nile virus, and dengue virus in the past decades [55–59]. Due to the symptomatic similarities between arbovirus and malaria infections, which has a prevalence of around 20% in Tanzania, it is probable that arbovirus cases are underreported [60,61]. While these studies confirm that the local human population is indeed exposed to arboviruses, the specific dynamics of arbovirus transmission in this region remains unclear.

The goal of this study was to investigate the potential of wild M. natalensis to serve as a host for arboviruses in their natural environment. To achieve this, we first developed a multiplex immune assay to detect immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against 15 different arboviruses and subsequently conducted a comprehensive screening of almost 1,300 blood samples obtained from M. natalensis from Morogoro, Tanzania.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The Ethical Committee for Animal Testing at the University of Antwerp approved the animal experiments performed in this study (ECD2021-79 and ECD2023-08).

Sample origin

The samples used in this study were collected during previous published and unpublished studies conducted by the University of Antwerp and Pest Management Center of the Sokoine University of Agriculture on M. natalensis in Morogoro, Tanzania, between 2010 and 2019 [31,62,63] (Fig 1). The samples were divided in two screening sessions. The first session consisted of approximately 500 dried blood spot (DBS) samples, from wild captured mice that were used in infection and behavioral experiments in six different years (i.e., 2010, 2011, 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019) with an average of 80 samples per year. The second session consisted of 800 DBS samples from mice involved in capture-mark-recapture experiments in 2017 and 2019. All samples were randomly selected from the studies regardless of individual characteristics or trapping period.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.g001 Fig 1 African continent with a focus on Tanzania.

Samples were collected in the city of Morogoro (red triangle) which is located in the Morogoro region. Basemap origins: https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=736&lang=en and https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=4976&lang=en.

During these studies, M. natalensis were live caught using Sherman traps (H.B. Sherman Traps, Tallahassee, USA) in a heterogeneous landscape (e.g., woodlands, maize fields, and fallow land) on the premises of the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Morogoro, Tanzania. Blood was collected from the retro-orbital plexus using a 50μL hematocrit capillary tube and preserved on filter paper (Serobuvard; LDA 22; Zoopole, France). The filter paper was dried for 12 hours at room temperature and archived at -20°C in envelopes with desiccant. Additional data related to characteristics such as sex, reproductive status, weight, and body measurements were recorded. More detailed Information pertaining to the trapping procedures and sampling methodology can be found in the primary research documents associated with these studies [31,62–64].

Analysis and protocol

Assay set up

To assess the presence of arbovirus antibodies in DBS against a panel of arboviruses, we first developed a multiplex immune assay using Luminex technology [18,65] (S1 File). Recombinant virus-derived proteins (Table 1) were covalently coupled to carboxyl-functionalized fluorescent magnetic beads (1–3μg/1.25*10^6 beads) (Luminex Corp. MagPlexMicrospheres; Bio-Rad; Temse, Belgium) employing the BioPlex amine coupling kit (Ref.: 171406001; Bio-Rad; Temse, Belgium) following the manufacturer’s instructions.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.t001 Table 1 Recombinant arbovirus proteins used for the bead coupling and the inoculation of captive Mastomys natalensis.

Viral family	Virus	Protein (reference)	Supplier	
Bunyaviridae	Rift Valley Fever virus (RVFV)	Nucleoprotein
(REC31640)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Flaviviridae	Yellow Fever virus (YFV)	Nonstructural protein 1
(YFV-NS1)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Flaviviridae	Zika virus (ZIKV)	Nonstructural protein 1
(40544-V07H)	Interchim
(Montluçon Cedex, France)	
Flaviviridae	Dengue virus serotype 1 (DENV1)	Nonstructural protein 1
(DEN-004)	Prospecbio
(Rehovot, Israel)	
Flaviviridae	Dengue virus serotype 2 (DENV2)	Nonstructural protein 1
(PIP048A)	BioRad
(Temse, Belgium)	
Flaviviridae	Dengue virus serotype 3 (DENV3)	Nonstructural protein 1
(DENV3-NS1)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Flaviviridae	Dengue virus serotype 4 (DENV4)	Nonstructural protein 1
(DENV4-NS1)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Flaviviridae	Usutu virus (USUV)	Nonstructural protein 1
(Ab218552)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Flaviviridae	West Nile virus (WNV)	Nonstructural protein 1
(40346-V07H)	Sinobiological
(Eschborn, Germany)	
Flaviviridae	Tick-borne Encephalitis virus (TBEV)	Nonstructural protein 1
(TBEV-NS1)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Flaviviridae	Wesselsbron virus (WSLV)	Nonstructural protein 1
(REC31698)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Nairoviridae	Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever virus (CCHFV)	Nucleoprotein
(REC31639)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Togaviridae	Chikungunya virus (CHIKV)	Envelope protein 2
(CHI-003)	Prospecbio
(Rehovot, Israel)	
Togaviridae	Mayaro virus (MAYV)	Envelope protein 2
(REC31644)	The native antigen company
(Kidlington, United Kingdom)	
Togaviridae	O’nyong nyong virus (ONNV)	Envelope protein 2
(B4TG40)	Interchim
(Montluçon Cedex, France)	

Arbovirus protein inoculation

To obtain positive control samples we inoculated captive M. natalensis individuals (age: 5–12 months) from our breeding colony at the University of Antwerp with recombinant virus-derived proteins (Table 1) [66–68]. We subcutaneously injected 4μg of the respective virus protein and 1μL of vaccine adjuvant (Quil-A adjuvant; InvivoGen; Toulouse, France), dissolved in autoclaved phosphate buffered saline (PBS) to achieve a final volume of 1mL. This inoculum was evenly divided, with 0.5mL administered into the scruff and 0.5mL into the hindlimb of the animal, using a 25-gauge, 12.5mm needle and a 0.5mL syringe. This inoculation was duplicated for each viral protein (i.e., performed in two mice) and repeated twice for each mouse (i.e., inoculation on day 0 and day 20). We collected blood, according to the same method as in the previously mentioned studies, every 10 days from day zero until day 30, at day 30 we also collected whole blood from which serum was extracted. Serum from day 30 from individuals were the antibody response increased over time were considered as positive samples. Day 30 had the highest antibody titer in our tests and is also a time point at which IgG antibody development is anticipated to have reached a peak [69,70].

Arbovirus IgG antibody screening

Screening was done in 96 flat-bottom well plates, each plate contained DBS samples of 80 wild M. natalensis, two background controls, eight negative controls, and a six step dilution series (1:200–1:625,000) of a positive pool sample. Each well in the plate contained 50μL of the corresponding sample type. The samples of the wild M. natalensis were acquired by placing a punched-out DBS (round, 0.5 cm diameter) in 200 μL of dilution buffer (1% bovine serum albumin, 0.2% Tween-20, 5% fetal calf serum, 45% distilled water, 50% Hypertonic PBS {0.08% NaH2PO4, 0.25% Na2HPO4, 8.8% NaCl}). One single DBS punch corresponds to approximately 10μL of blood [71]. The punched DBS were left to elute overnight, in a 1.5mL Eppendorf tube, maintained at a temperature of 4°C on a plate shaker. This elution was considered a 1:100 dilution and was diluted, with dilution buffer, to 1:200 prior to loading in the 96 well plate. This dilution gave the best signal to noise ratio in our preliminary tests and are in line with previous studies [18,72]. The background control was reading buffer (1% bovine serum albumin, 0.05% NaN3, 100% phosphate buffered saline). The eight negative controls were four DBS, treated the same as the wild M. natalensis DBS, and four serum samples in a 1:200 dilution. All negative controls originated from the breeding colony at the University of Antwerp. Serum from 15 positive individuals (i.e., one for each inoculated arbovirus antigen) was pooled to create the positive pool sample, each individual serum had a final dilution in the pool of 1:200.

In each well of the 96 well plate, 25μL of bead mixture was added. The bead mixture consisted out of ~1000 protein-coated beads per arbovirus antigen suspended in reading buffer. The bead mixture of the first screening session did not contain ONNV beads.

Plates, containing 50μL of sample and 25μL of bead mixture per well, were incubated for one hour at room temperature, in the dark and on a plate shaker (Heidolph Titrimax 100; VWR; Leuven, Belgium) at 400rpm/min. After incubation, plates underwent washing with dilution buffer using an automated plate washer (Tecan Hydroflex plate washer; Tecan Benelux; Mechelen, Belgium). Subsequently, we added 50μL Biotin anti-mouse IgG (4μg/mL) (Sigma-Aldrich B7022; Merck Life Science; Hoeilaart, Belgium) to each well and incubated for 40 minutes. After another round of washing, we added 50μL of Streptavidin-R-phycoerythrin (1μg/mL) (10655783; Fisher Scientific; Brussel, Belgium) to each well, followed by a 10-minute incubation. The last wash step used reading buffer, and the final bead pellet was resuspended in 150μL of reading buffer. Beads were read on a Bio-Plex 200 System (Bio-Rad; Temse, Belgium). Results were quantified as the median fluorescent intensity (MFI) based on a minimum of 100 beads per antigen, MFI data can be found in S1 Table.

Data analysis and statistics

All data preparation, analysis and statistical procedures were conducted using R Statistical Software (R version 4.3.3) [73] (S2 File).

Weight as age classification

We used the body weight of the wild-caught M. natalensis individuals at the time of sample collection as a rough proxy for age, which we subdivided into three categories based on the 1/3 quantiles of weight; juvenile (5–26.7g), subadult (>26.7–42g) and adult (>42–91g). These weight classes coincide to the expected sexual maturity, with sexual maturity estimated to occur between 30–40g [29,32].

Inter plate variation

To control for variation between different assay plates and testing days, the MFI results were transformed to relative antibody units using the positive dilution series as a standard curve. The MFI result of the positive control starting dilution (i.e., 1:200) was equalized to 3,125 units and each following dilution step was adjusted proportionally (i.e., the final dilution step 1:625,000 corresponded to 1 unit). The results of the two sessions were combined by linear alignment adjustment. This alignment was based on 86 duplicate samples encompassing the measurable range, allowing the adjustment of the results from the first session.

Serostatus, cutoff and seroprevalence

Finally, each sample was categorized as a binary value (i.e., 1 = positive, 0 = negative) for each of the tested arboviruses. This was done based on whether the unit value exceeded the mean cutoff value for that specific arbovirus antigen. Five cutoff values were determined for each arbovirus antigen: I) the mean plus three times the standard deviation of the negative controls (i.e. ‘NegCtrl’) [18,65]; the change-point analysis, using R package ’changepoint’ (version: 2.2.4), calculated at most one changepoint based on the II) mean (i.e. ‘CHP.m’), III) variance (i.e. ‘CHP.v’) and IV) a combination of mean and variance (i.e. ‘CHP.mv’) of wild-caught samples [74,75] and V) the maximum value of an average antibody curve (i.e. ‘Recap’). This curve was based on wild-caught individuals that were recaptured at least three times and showed seroconversion. Seroconversion of an individual was considered when the individual’s maximum unit value was at least four-fold the minimum unit value. This four-fold increase is a standard seroconversion confirmation measure in human antibody studies [76]. An average antibody curve, with days as the explanatory variable, was created for each antigen by aligning the maximum unit value of each recaptured seroconverted individual to the same day. The binary results were used to calculate the seroprevalence for each arbovirus along with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using the ‘binom.exact’ from the package ‘binom’ (version: 1.1.1.1) [77].

Statistical tests

The seroprevalence according to the different cutoff methods was compared to the seroprevalence of the antibody curve cutoff using the ‘chisq.test’ from the package ‘stats’ (version 4.3.3) [73]

As an indication of cross-reactivity in antibody response between the tested arboviruses, pair-wise Pearson correlations were calculated on the binary results, according to the antibody curve cutoff, of all samples using the ‘corr.test’ function of R package ‘psych’ (version: 2.4.1) [78]. The cross-reactivity in antibody response was visualized using the ‘heatmap.2’ function of the R package ‘gplots’ (version: 3.1.3) [79].

A generalized linear model (logit link function and binomial error distribution) was constructed with the package ‘stat’ (version: 4.3.1), with the response variable being the binary serostatus of each sample [73]. Age (juvenile, subadult and adult), sex and their interaction were included as explanatory variables. The analysis of variance was performed using a likelihood ratio test, with p-values calculated assuming a chi-squared distribution. Pairwise comparison of the seroprevalence was performed between the six combinations of the explanatory variables (two levels of sex and three levels of age), using the ‘emmeans’ package (version: 1.8.9) [80]. To prevent reporting statistical findings based on the reliance of an arbitrary p-value of 0.05, we instead present significance in terms of levels of statistical support based on p-values. P-values exceeding 0.1 are labeled as “no” support and values around 0.05 (range 0.1–≥ 0.01, symbol: *) as “weak” support. “Moderate” support was assigned to p-values clearly below 0.05 (range < 0.01–≥ 0.001, symbol: **), while “strong” support is reserved for p-values lower than 0.05 (< 0.001, symbol: ***). This representation in terms of statistical support is based on current statistical reporting practices [81].

Results

In total 1,280 DBS samples were assessed of which 660 were female, consisting of 256 juveniles, 172 subadults and 232 adults, 620 samples were male with 199 juveniles, 313 subadults and 108 adults. Samples of recaptured individuals were considered as individual samples for all analyses.

Seroprevalence

The seroprevalences according to the different cutoff methods showed at least a weak statistical support for a different seroprevalence compared to the antibody curve seroprevalence for almost all arboviruses. Histograms of the data and seroprevalence for each tested arbovirus antigen according to the different cutoff methods is shown in S1 and S2 Figs. The cutoff value according to the antibody curve based on the recaptured seroconverted individuals was used as the main cutoff value for all further calculations.

The overall arbovirus seroprevalence, defined as at least positive for one of the tested arboviruses, except ONNV, was almost 24% (95% CI: 21.89–26.66%; N = 1280). ONNV was excluded since the samples of the first session were not screened for antibodies against the ONNV antigen. The seroprevalence for Flaviviridae was 20% (95% CI: 17.99–22.46%; N = 1280) and for Togaviridae, excluding ONNV, almost 7% (95% CI: 5.48–8.32%; N = 1280). Overall, seroprevalences ranged from 0.62% for DENV3 (95% CI: 0.27–1.23%; N = 1280) and MAYV (95% CI: 0.27–1.23%; N = 1280) to 8.44% for DENV2 (95% CI: 6.97–10.10%; N = 1280), see Table 2.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.t002 Table 2 Total seroprevalence of each arbovirus and virus family in the wild-caught M. natalensis sample set.

	Seroprevalence (%)	95% CI (%)	Nr. positive	Cutoff	
Arbovirusa	24.22	21.89–26.66	310		
Bunyaviridae					
RVFV	2.58	1.78–3.60	66	37.94	
Flaviviridae	20.16	17.99–22.46	258		
YFV	2.03	1.33–2.96	26	3.45	
ZIKV	3.44	2.51–4.59	44	15.23	
DENV1	7.58	6.19–9.17	97	42.11	
DENV2	8.44	6.97–10.10	108	101.09	
DENV3	0.62	0.27–1.23	8	32.27	
DENV4	5.62	4.43–7.03	72	40.66	
USUV	4.61	3.53–5.91	59	6.47	
WNV	2.42	1.65–3.42	31	25.60	
TBEV	1.64	1.02–2.50	21	50.85	
WSLV	3.52	2.58–4.68	45	4.16	
Nairoviridae					
CCHFV	2.81	1.98–3.87	36	5513.61	
Togaviridae a	6.80	5.48–8.32	87		
CHIKV	6.17	4.92–7.63	79	43.95	
MAYV	0.62	0.27–1.23	8	11.91	
ONNV	2.18	1.30–3.42	18	77.10	
A 95% confidence interval (CI) is provided, and the calculated cutoff value is in units. Sample size was 1280 for each tested arbovirus except for ONNV which had 826 samples

a Indicates that ONNV was not included for that calculation.

Pairwise arbovirus serostatus correlation

The correlations in serostatus of samples between the tested arboviruses are visualized in Fig 2. Correlation between two arboviruses is depicted in color scale with the statistical symbol, lower triangle, and the number of positive samples in the upper triangle. The matrix is accompanied by a dendrogram based on the hierarchical clustering of the correlation coefficients. The branch lengths are a proxy for relative distance between arboviruses based on the serostatus response of the samples.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.g002 Fig 2 Correlation of the serostatus response between the tested arboviruses with a dendrogram of hierarchical clustering.

Symbols in lower triangle represent significance of correlation, values in upper triangle, including diagonal line, represents the number of positive individuals for the corresponding arboviruses.

The correlation in sample response between the tested arboviruses ranged from -2.44% for TBEV and ZIKV with no statistical support (p = 0.384) to almost 59% between WSLV and USUV with a strong statistical support (p< 0.001). The dendrogram based on the hierarchical clustering of the correlation showed that WSLV–USUV (correlation = 58.52%; p< 0.001), DENV2 –DENV4 (correlation = 56.03%; p< 0.001) and DENV1 –CHIKV (correlation = 50.31%; p< 0.001) are relatively closer to each other than to other tested arboviruses.

Model analysis of antibody response

Sex, age, and interaction effects on serostatus

The generalized linear model indicated that there was a weak statistical interaction between the effects of sex and age on serostatus for DENV4 (Deviance [Df. = 2; Res.Df. = 1274] = 5.44; p = 0.066) and USUV (Deviance [Df. = 2; Res.Df. = 1274] = 7.72; p = 0.021). For the other tested arboviruses, no support for a statistical interaction was detected, the interaction was thus removed from those models. In the case of RVFV, no statistical support was found for an effect of sex, age, or the interaction on the serostatus. All results from generalized linear model’s analysis of variance are reported in S2 Table.

The analysis of the sex variable showed a moderate support for males having a lower seroprevalence compared to females for DENV2 (Est. males ± SE = -0.665 ± 0.242; p = 0.006) and WSLV (Est. males ± SE = -1.446 ± 0.483; p = 0.003). A weak statistical effect of a lower seroprevalence in males compared to females was detected in ZIKV (Est. males ± SE = -0.643 ± 0.386; p = 0.096), TBEV (Est. males ± SE = -1.103 ± 0.635; p = 0.083), CCHFV (Est. males ± SE = -0.821 ± 0.460; p = 0.074) and CHIKV (Est. males ± SE = -0.633 ± 0.296; p = 0.032). There was no support for a difference in seroprevalence between males and females for RVFV (Est. males ± SE = 0.097 ± 0.381; p = 0.798), YFV (Est. males ± SE = 0.425 ± 0.413; p = 0.304), DENV1 (Est. males ± SE = -0.377 ± 0.248; p = 0.129), DENV3 (Est. males ± SE = -17.43 ± 2021.76; p = 0.993), WNV (Est. males ± SE = -0.009 ± 0.397; p = 0.982), MAYV (Est. males ± SE = -1.222 ± 1.080; p = 0.258) and ONNV (Est. males ± SE = -17.75 ± 1663.70; p = 0.991).

The analysis of the age variable showed a strong statistical support for a higher seroprevalence in subadults than in juveniles for DENV1 and DENV2, a moderate support for CHIKV and a weak support for YFV, ZIKV, TBEV, WSLV and CCHFV. There was no support for a difference in subadult and juvenile seroprevalence in the other tested arboviruses. A significantly higher seroprevalence in adults compared to juveniles was shown for ZIKV, DENV1, DENV2, WSLV and CHIKV with a strong support. A moderate support for a higher seroprevalence in adults than in juveniles was detected for YFV and CCHFV. Adults showed a weak statistical support for a higher seroprevalence in contrast to juveniles for WNV and TBEV. All other tested arboviruses showed no support for a statistical difference between adults and juveniles. The comparison between subadults and adults showed a strongly supported statistical difference for DENV1 and CHIKV with a higher seroprevalence in adults. A moderate support for a higher seroprevalence in adults compared to subadults was detected for ZIKV and CCHFV. Yellow Fever virus, WNV, WSLV and ONNV showed a weak support for a statistically higher seroprevalence in adults than in subadults. The other arboviruses showed no statistically significant difference between adults and subadults. See Table 3 for estimates, standard errors, and p-values.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.t003 Table 3 Difference in coefficient estimate on logit scale between the age levels with standard error (SE).

	Juvenile—Subadult	Juvenile—Adult	Subadult—Adult	
	Estimate ± SE	p-value	Estimate ± SE	p-value	Estimate ± SE	p-value	
RVFV	-0.227 ± 0.480	0.637	-0.649 ± 0.446	0.146	-0.422 ± 0.421	0.316	
YFV	-1.368 ± 0.794	0.085	-2.197 ± 0.757	0.004	-0.829 ± 0.449	0.065	
ZIKV	-1.349 ± 0.656	0.040	-2.308 ± 0.611	< 0.001	-0.959 ± 0.365	0.009	
DENV1	-1.610 ± 0.456	< 0.001	-2.468 ± 0.434	< 0.001	-0.858 ± 0.243	< 0.001	
DENV2	-1.551 ± 0.356	< 0.001	-1.780 ± 0.352	< 0.001	-0.229 ± 0.221	0.301	
DENV3	-16.47 ± 2176.65	0.994	-18.14 ± 2176.65	0.993	-1.665 ± 1.073	0.121	
WNV	0.007 ± 0.582	0.991	-1.20 ± 0.477	0.012	-1.207 ± 0.480	0.012	
TBEV	-1.855 ± 1.083	0.087	-2.566 ± 1.039	0.014	-0.711 ± 0.499	0.155	
WSLV	-0.960 ± 0.539	0.075	-1.656 ± 0.492	< 0.001	-0.697 ± 0.357	0.051	
CCHFV	-1.999 ± 1.072	0.062	-3.321 ± 1.021	0.001	-1.321 ± 0.434	0.002	
CHIKV	-2.267 ± 0.749	0.002	-3.474 ± 0.723	< 0.001	-1.207 ± 0.283	< 0.001	
MAYV	0.642 ± 1.228	0.601	-0.807 ± 0.844	0.339	-1.449 ± 1.104	0.189	
ONNV	-17.05 ± 1747.82	0.992	-18.15 ± 1747.82	0.992	-1.099 ± 0.641	0.087	
Data originates from the pairwise comparison of the age class variables of the generalized linear model. P-values marked in bold have at least a weak statistical support (p< 0.1).

In the case of DENV4, there was a weak support for an interaction between the effects of age and sex: the analysis showed that there was a strong statistical support for a higher seroprevalence in female adults compared to female juveniles (Est. female—adult ± SE = 1.844 ± 0.486; p< 0.001). A moderate support was shown for a higher seroprevalence in female subadults compared to female juveniles (Est. female—subadult ± SE = 1.379 ± 0.517; p = 0.008) and a weak support for a higher seroprevalence in female adults compared to male adults (Est. female—adult ± SE = 1.898 ± 0.736; p = 0.010). For USUV the model analysis with a weak interaction, showed that there was weak statistical support for a higher seroprevalence in female adults compared to female subadults (Est. female—adult ± SE = 0.868 ± 0.345; p = 0.012) and also a weak support for a higher seroprevalence in female adults compared to male adults (Est. female—adult ± SE = 1.515 ± 0.612; p = 0.013).

Fig 3 displays the seroprevalence for the six distinct levels (two levels of sex and three levels of age) for all tested arboviruses, with statistical support lines based on the log odds.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.g003 Fig 3 Seroprevalence according to sex and age combinations with 95% confidence error bars for each arbovirus.

Statistical support on seroprevalence difference is indicated by asterisks in the horizontal lines. Sample size: 660 females of which 256 juveniles, 172 subadults and 232 adult and 620 males with 199 juveniles, 313 subadults and 108 adults. Sample sizes for ONNV are 560 females: 150 juveniles, 150 subadults, 260 adults and 266 males: 94 juveniles, 92 subadults and 80 adults.

Discussion

In this study, we optimized a high-throughput multiplex immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of IgG antibodies against 15 medically relevant arboviruses and used it to investigate the potential of M. natalensis to serve as a host for arboviruses. Besides the high throughput and multiplexing possibility, bead-based Luminex assays come with several other advantages, such as the small sample volumes required for testing, the compatibility with diverse sample types, incl. eluted DBS, the cost-effectiveness with lower reagent cost and reduced labor time, a broad dynamic range for accurate quantification, a reduced variability as a result of running multiple analytes in a single assay, and the versatility and flexibility of customizable panels. We describe the screening results of an archived set of wild M. natalensis DBS samples. Our results revealed an overall seroprevalence of 24% against the entire panel of tested antigens. Virus family-specific seroprevalences were approximately 2.6%, 20%, 2.8% and 7% for respectively Bunyaviridae, Flaviviridae, Nairoviridae and Togaviridae. We further found that female rodents were more likely to be classified as antibody positive for eight of the 15 tested arboviruses. Additionally, positivity increased significantly with age for almost all tested arboviruses.

The lack of realistic natural positive controls limits the possibility to calculate the assay’s sensitivity and determine a true cutoff, we therefore used recaptured seroconverted individuals to determine a cutoff value. The use of antibody titers at multiple time points are a standard practice to determine antibody or pathogen development and (sero)conversions in human studies [76]. However, multiple samples of an individual animal across time are often impossible or very difficult in wildlife studies. Our study is unique in that regard that we have measurements of individual recaptured M. natalensis. We consider that our cutoff based on seroconverted individuals is a good proxy for the natural cutoff value, since it is based on similar methods as in human studies [76]. We tried to show in our analysis that the tested mathematical methods could approximate this calculated cutoff and thus provide a method for future studies that do not have access to recaptured seroconverted wildlife samples. Unfortunately, the tested cutoff methods did not significantly approximate the seroprevalence according to the cutoff using samples from recaptures. The negative control-based cutoff (i.e., the mean plus three times the standard deviation of the negative control samples) gave unrealistic high seroprevalences. This can be explained by the fact that the negative control samples originate from a breeding colony and could thus also not be used to determine the assay’s specificity. These animals have thus never been exposed to a natural environment and the pathogens that occur in the environment.

The statistical methods vary in their seroprevalence with some methods approximating the estimated seroprevalence according to the recaptured cutoff. This high degree of variation makes it difficult to decide on one method that works for all the tested arboviruses. The cutoff value for CCHFV seems extremely high compared to the other arboviruses, but the unit values for CCHFV are also much higher than for the other arboviruses (see S1 Fig). The reason is that the unit values are calculated based on the positive dilution series and the positive controls for CCHFV were not of the same magnitude as for the other arboviruses. The value in determining a cutoff and the resulting seroprevalence is that it allows the comparison of results with previous and future studies on arbovirus seroprevalence in rodents or other wildlife. We are aware that the used cutoff and resulting seroprevalences could be an over- or underestimation and might not reflect the natural arbovirus seroprevalence. We therefore encourage future research to investigate and compare different cutoff methods for arbovirus (or pathogen) antibody detection in wildlife studies.

The detection of antibodies against each of 15 tested arbovirus antigens indicates that these arboviruses, or closely related viruses, are present in M. natalensis. The overall arbovirus seroprevalence of 24% suggests that this rodent species is commonly infected with one or more arboviruses and that it could thus play a significant role in virus transmission and persistence. Our results corroborate previous studies, which detected USUV and WNV RNA in respectively M. natalensis and M. erythroleucus, in Senegal [24,54]. Besides in this genus, arboviral RNA has also been found in other rodents in Africa, such as Rattus rattus for USUV and WSLV and Desmodillus auricularis for WSLV [22,24,53]. The findings in our study thus further corroborate that arboviruses are likely present in rodents, and specifically in the ubiquitous M. natalensis. The demographic and ecological characteristics of M. natalensis may have particularly important implications for arbovirus transmission. The population densities of M. natalensis in Tanzania are strongly dependent on weather conditions. More specifically, early rainfall and elevated temperatures lead to an exponential growth in the population density, due to an increase influx of juveniles [29,30,32]. The rainfall and increased temperatures are also beneficial for the breeding of mosquitoes and the multiplication of arboviruses within these vectors [82]. Further, M. natalensis is highly abundant around houses and in the crop fields at the fringes of the villages. These factors increase the likelihood of arbovirus outbreaks in M. natalensis populations, with the possibility of spillover to humans.

Arboviruses that show the highest seroprevalence are DENV1, DENV2, DENV4 and CHIKV, with seroprevalences between five to nine percent. These seroprevalences could be caused by cross-reactivity due to antibodies of other dengue virus serotypes or other flaviviruses binding to the non-structural protein 1 (NS1 protein) of DENV1, DENV2 and DENV4. The same effect could also be true for alphaviruses binding to the envelope protein 2 (E2 protein) of CHIKV. Whether these seroprevalences are indeed due to the presence of the arbovirus specific antibodies or a related arbovirus remains to be investigated. Nonetheless, it indicates that a part of the sampled M. natalensis population in Morogoro is exposed to dengue virus and CHIKV or respectively to a related flavivirus and alphavirus. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that flavi- and alphaviruses are the most prevalent arboviral genera in humans, compared to other arbovirus genera, and potentially thus also in rodents involved in the sylvatic cycle [83,84].

A recent health survey has shown that, in our samples’ region of origin, a high percentage of the human population is seropositive for CHIKV (9.83%) [55]. Another study in the same region reported acute infection of CHIKV in 1.28% of patients with fever and malaria-like symptoms [85]. Although these studies have not found any indication of dengue virus in humans, a large-scale cross-sectional study in Tanzania has found CHIKV and dengue virus antibodies in respectively 28.0% and 16.1% of the population [56]. These studies clearly indicate that the human population in Tanzania is exposed to arboviruses and then specifically to CHIKV and DENV.

The cross-reactivity analysis via the correlation matrix and hierarchical clustering (Fig 2) showed an antibody response correlation between WSLV–USUV (59%), DENV2 –DENV4 (56%) and DENV1 –CHIKV (50%). We expected that phylogenetically related arboviruses would show elevated levels of correlation due to cross-reactivity [86]. A remarkable result in this cross-reactivity analysis is that DENV1 –CHIKV cluster together with a correlation of 50%, based on the serostatus of the tested samples. The branch DENV1/CHIKV clusters also closer to ONNV than to the branches of WSLV/USUV and DENV2/DENV4. This is unexpected since CHIKV belongs to the Togaviridae and DENV1 to the Flaviviridae [87]. The proteins used for the antibody detection are also two different proteins, with the E2 protein used for the Togaviridae and NS1 protein for the Flaviviridae, thus limiting the possibility of cross-reactivity. Although we cannot exclude that there might be similar epitopes between the different proteins, other studies have already indicated that cross-reactivity between the E2 protein of the Togaviridae and NS1 protein of the Flaviviridae is limited [88,89]. The residue identity between the two proteins is also less then 13% according to the amino acid alignment algorithm of Geneious Prime. Given that both Togaviridae and Flaviviridae viruses are circulating in humans in East Africa, we hypothesize that these viral families may also both be present in rodents [5,10]. More specifically, it is plausible that both viral families could be found in M. natalensis, where pathogen co-infections are common [49]. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that some viruses in both families are transmitted by the same arthropod vectors, such as Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus for both dengue virus and CHIKV [4,82].

For some of the tested arboviruses, we found statistical support for a higher seroprevalence in females than in males. This result is supported by previous studies where it is shown that female mice have a stronger innate immune response than male mice [90]. In other animals (e.g., birds, fish, insects) as well as humans, females also display stronger immune responses [91–95]. The major driving forces behind these immune differences are genetic (i.e., X-chromosome-linked) and hormonal (i.e., different estrogen and testosterone levels) [96]. In the case of M. natalensis, behavioral differences could also be the cause for this divergence in seroprevalence. Previous studies have already shown that home range, behavior and pathogen presence differ between male and female M. natalensis [48,97]. These inherent sex differences in sensitivity to infections could influence the seroprevalence, where the calculated cutoff value could be an over or under estimation for a particular sex. However, since our sample size of males (N = 620) and females (N = 660) is approximately the same this influence was considered to be insignificant. Besides the sex effects, we also found statistical support for a positive age effect on the presence of antibodies in some of the tested arboviruses. This increased seroprevalence with age corroborates previous findings for other pathogens (i.e., Bartonella sp., Anaplasma sp., helminths, and arenaviruses) [48,49,98]. This age effect further supports our hypothesis that M. natalensis is exposed to arboviruses and that individuals develop antibodies and gain immunity via repeated exposures throughout their life. To maintain the arbovirus transmission in the M. natalensis population, there needs to be a proportion of the population that is either chronically infected or immunologically naïve. Chronic infections in M. natalensis have already been documented for mammarenaviruses [31,99]. However, as far as we are aware, naturally occurring chronic arbovirus infections have not been reported in humans or non-human vertebrates. Therefore, the presumable driving factor in sustained transmission is the presence of immunologically naïve individuals. During the breeding season, which coincides with increased rainfall and temperature, there is an influx of immunologically naïve juveniles. This influx can reach high proportions during population outbreak periods [30,64]. We thus expect that it is juveniles who are the major factor in sustaining the arbovirus transmission cycle. We predict that the prevalence of arboviral genetic material will be higher in juveniles than in adults, since juveniles do not possess the necessary antibodies to fight of the infection.

We conclude from our detected antibody responses that arboviruses, or related viruses, are present in M. natalensis in Morogoro, Tanzania. The higher seroprevalence we detect in females can be explained by genetic, hormonal, ecological and/or behavioral differences between sexes. Individuals are exposed to these viruses throughout their life and gain immunity as they age. We hypothesize that juvenile M. natalensis play an essential role in sustaining arbovirus transmission as they are immunologically naïve and can reach high densities in favorable climate conditions that coincide with optimal vector conditions. More extensive screening, such as virus neutralization tests and molecular screening of these viruses within M. natalensis are necessary to quantify the contribution of this rodent species in the arbovirus transmission cycle.

Supporting information

S1 File Standard operating procedure (SOP) of the developed high-throughput multiplex immunoassay to detect antibodies against 15 medically relevant arboviruses using Luminex technology.

(PDF)

S2 File RMarkdown file detailing the statistical analysis used and described in this manuscript.

(HTML)

S1 Fig Histograms of wild-caught M. natalensis for each tested arbovirus with on the x-axis the relative antibody units in a logarithmic scale.

The relative antibody units are calculated according to the positive control dilution series. The calculated cutoff values are represented by the colored vertical lines: ‘CHP.m’ is the changepoint mean, ‘CHP.mv’ is the changepoint mean-variance, ‘CHP.v’ is the changepoint variance, ‘NegCtrl’ is the mean plus three times the standard deviation of the negative control samples and ‘Recap’ is the maximum value of an antibody development curve based on recaptured seroconverted wild-caught M. natalensis.

(SVG)

S2 Fig Estimated seroprevalence, according to the calculated cutoff methods, of the wild-caught M. natalensis with 95% confidence interval for each of the tested arboviruses.

The cutoff methods: ‘CHP.m’ is the changepoint mean, ‘CHP.mv’ is the changepoint mean-variance, ‘CHP.v’ is the changepoint variance, ‘NegCtrl’ is the mean plus three times the standard deviation of the negative control samples and ‘Recap’ is the maximum value of an antibody development curve based on recaptured seroconverted wild-caught M. natalensis. Each calculated seroprevalence was compared to the ‘Recap’ seroprevalence using a Chi-square test, significant difference is depicted in asterisk (*) symbols. P-values: * 0.1–≥ 0.01; ** < 0.01–≥ 0.001; *** < 0.001.

(SVG)

S1 Table Raw MFI data of all the samples used and described in this manuscript.

(XLSX)

S2 Table Analysis of variance from the generalized linear model (logit link function and binomial error distribution) with the response variable being the binary serostatus of each sample.

Sex and age and their interaction were included as explanatory variables. P values with at least a weak statistical support are marked in bold (p< 0.1).

(XLSX)

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.r001
Decision Letter 0
Holbrook Michael R Section Editor
Wang Ran Academic Editor
© 2024 Holbrook, Wang
2024
Holbrook, Wang
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
16 Jul 2024

Dear Mr. De Kesel,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Antibodies against medically relevant arthropod-borne viruses in the ubiquitous African rodent Mastomys natalensis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Ran Wang, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Michael Holbrook

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? Yes

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? Yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? No

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The analysis presented match the analysis plan and results are clearly presented using good quality figures.

Reviewer #2: 1. Page 18, line 348 - Please correct grammar.

2. Page 23, line 453-458 - The authors showed that the DBS samples were cross-reactive with different viral proteins like NS1 of DENV and E2 of CHIKV, and they discussed the cross-reactivity to between different two proteins. So to well understand that point, please indicate the amino acid homology rate between NS1 and E2 proteins.

3. Common experimental mouse has different sensitivity to viral infections between sex. Do authors think the sensitivity affect the seropositivity in your results?

4. Authors showed the seroprevalence of Arbovirus you listed. Are there reports that those viruses experimentally infect to mouse, and induced antibodies to NS1 or E2 proteins?

5. Please correct Fig 2, especially Zika virus. Authors Zika virus belongs to Togaviridae. This is not correct.x

6. How is the sensitivity of this high-throughput multiplex immune assay?

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The authors conclude that M.natalensis play an important role in sustaining arbovirus transmission and this is supported by the data presented in the results (an overall seroprevalence of 24%). The paper clearly stated the limitations in their analysis such as using negative control from a breeding colony that could potentially over/under-estimate the sero-prevalence.

Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? Yes

Is public health relevance addressed? Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Though the paper is well-written i think some background on the multiplex immunoassay will help to understand why the authors chose this method.

The method section is well-written however it would read better if the authors could consider adding subtitles to subsections e.g. Screening for IgG antibodies to arboviruses, recombinant arbovirus proteins etc

More details on beads coupling (if it was done)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: De Kesel and co-authors present an interesting study that address a key gap in the existing knowledge of arboviral diseases transmission dynamics. The authors hypothesize that rodents specifically M.natalensis may serve as amplifying hosts of arboviruses. To this end, they screened blood samples from M.natalensis individuals for antibodies against 15 medically important arboviruses and reported an overall arbovirus seroprevalence of 24% suggesting that M.natalensis plays a role in the transmission of multiple arboviruses. The main strength of this paper is that the authors chose a perfect rodent species to study arboviruses transmission dynamics. Besides being a reservoir host of numerous pathogens and also the most abundant rodent species in SSA, M.natalensis lives in close proximity to humans increasing the risk of pathogen spillover to humans. As such, the paper identifies rodents as potential sources of arbovirus infections that pose a threat to human health. One of the weaknesses or rather a limitation is that the authors used negative controls obtained from a breeding colony instead of natural positive controls which could have affected the cut-off values. I enjoyed reading this manuscript and i think the paper is well written. However, some background information on the immunoassay used is missing and the analysis, set up and protocol in the methods section could be strctured into subsections with subtitles.

Reviewer #2: The authors developed a high-throughput multiplex immune assay using Luminex technology. The system employed the viral proteins such as NS1 protein for Flaviviridae and E2 protein for Togaviridae to evaluate the seroprevalence for 15 species of arboviruses in multimammate mouse and Mastomysnatalensis in Tanzania. They showed the these african small mammals had highly seropositive rate to several arboviruses, such as Dengue virus type 2 (8.44%), Usutu virus (4.61%), Chikungunya virus (6.17%), and etc. Moreover, they presented the difference in seropositivity between sex or age. These results suggest that these small mammals play a role of transmission of arboviruses in African continent. This work is necessary to understand the viral circulations. This accumulates our knowledge to maintain public health.

If the authors continue this study, I'd like to try to isolate the arboviruses from African small animals.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
31 Jul 2024

Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter PNTD_De Kesel et al..docx

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.r003
Decision Letter 1
Holbrook Michael R Section Editor
Wang Ran Academic Editor
© 2024 Holbrook, Wang
2024
Holbrook, Wang
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
20 Aug 2024

Dear Mr. De Kesel,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Antibodies against medically relevant arthropod-borne viruses in the ubiquitous African rodent Mastomys natalensis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Ran Wang, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Michael Holbrook

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? Yes.

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes.

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? Yes.

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? Yes.

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? Yes.

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Yes.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Yes.

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? Yes.

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Yes.

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Yes.

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? Yes.

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? Yes.

-Is public health relevance addressed? Yes.

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Accept

Reviewer #2: The authors have responded appropriately to the reviewers' comments, and their replies have enabled us to fully understand this paper. I recommend that this paper be accepted.

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: All comments are addressed in a satisfactory manner.

Reviewer #2: I don't have no more comments. This paper is well written.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012233.r004
Acceptance letter
Holbrook Michael R Section Editor
Wang Ran Academic Editor
© 2024 Holbrook, Wang
2024
Holbrook, Wang
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
29 Aug 2024

Dear Mr. De Kesel,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Antibodies against medically relevant arthropod-borne viruses in the ubiquitous African rodent Mastomys natalensis," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
==== Refs
References

1 Boutayeb A. The Impact of Infectious Diseases on the Development of Africa. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures, 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-78665-0_66
2 Nkengasong J , Tessema S . Africa Needs a New Public Health Order to Tackle Infectious Disease Threats. Cell 2020;183 . doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.041 33064983
3 Minakshi P , Brar B , Lambe U , Ranjan K , Prasad G , Hari M , et al . RNA viruses: Greatest global threat and one health solutions. Virusdisease 2019;30.
4 Huang Y , Higgs S , Vanlandingham D . Emergence and re-emergence of mosquito-borne arboviruses. Curr Opin Virol 2019;34 :104–9. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2019.01.001 30743191
5 Venter M. Assessing the zoonotic potential of arboviruses of African origin. Curr Opin Virol 2018;28 :74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2017.11.004 29216533
6 Omondi D , Masiga D , Ajamma Y , Fielding B , Njoroge L , Villinger J . Unraveling host-vector-arbovirus interactions by two-gene high resolution melting mosquito bloodmeal analysis in a Kenyan wildlife-livestock interface. PLoS One 2015;10 :e0134375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134375 26230507
7 Musa A , Muturi M , Musyoki A , Ouso D , Oundo J , Makhulu E , et al . Arboviruses and blood meal sources in zoophilic mosquitoes at human-wildlife interfaces in Kenya. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2020;20 :444–53. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2019.2563 32155389
8 Thompson P , van Den Bergh C , Venter E , Schade M , Swanepoel R . Co-circulation of Rift Valley fever virus and other zoonotic arboviruses at the human-livestock-wildlife interface in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2020;101 :535. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1387
9 Pierson T , Diamond M . The continued threat of emerging flaviviruses. Nat Microbiol 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0714-0 32367055
10 Mayer S , Tesh R , Vasilakis N . The emergence of arthropod-borne viral diseases: A global prospective on dengue, chikungunya and zika fevers. Acta Trop 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.11.020 27876643
11 Gould E , Pettersson J , Higgs S , Charrel R , De Lamballerie X . Emerging arboviruses: why today? One Health 2017;4 :1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2017.06.001 28785601
12 Gould E , Higgs S . Impact of climate change and other factors on emerging arbovirus diseases. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2009;103 . doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.07.025 18799177
13 Shahhosseini N , Wong G , Babuadze G , Camp J , Ergonul O , Kobinger G , et al . Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in Asia, Africa and Europe. Microorganisms 2021;9 :1907. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9091907 34576803
14 Akash S , Islam M , Rahman M . Rift Valley fever (RVF): a re-emerging zoonotic disease, pathogenesis, epidemiology, current status, and future perspective–correspondence. International Journal of Surgery 2023;109 .
15 Bernstein A , Ando A , Loch-Temzelides T , Vale M , Li B , Li H , et al . The costs and benefits of primary prevention of zoonotic pandemics. Sci Adv 2022;8 :eabl4183. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abl4183 35119921
16 Vora N , Hannah L , Lieberman S , Vale M , Plowright R , Bernstein A . Want to prevent pandemics? Stop spillovers. Nature 2022;605 :419–22. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-01312-y 35551284
17 Gubler D. The global emergence/resurgence of arboviral diseases as public health problems. Arch Med Res, 2002. doi: 10.1016/s0188-4409(02)00378-8 12234522
18 Raulino R , Thaurignac G , Butel C , Villabona-Arenas C , Foe T , Loul S , et al . Multiplex detection of antibodies to Chikungunya, O’nyong-nyong, Zika, Dengue, West Nile and Usutu viruses in diverse non-human primate species from Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2021;15 :e0009028–. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009028 33476338
19 Eastwood G , Sang R , Guerbois M , Taracha E , Weaver S . Enzootic circulation of chikungunya virus in East Africa: Serological evidence in non-human Kenyan primates. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2017;97 :1399–404. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0126 29016323
20 Valentine M , Murdock C , Kelly P . Sylvatic cycles of arboviruses in non-human primates. Parasit Vectors 2019;12 :463. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3732-0 31578140
21 Olive M , Goodman S , Reynes J . The role of wild mammals in the maintenance of Rift Valley fever virus. J Wildl Dis 2012;48 :241–66. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-48.2.241 22493102
22 Diagne M , Faye M , Faye O , Sow A , Balique F , Sembène M , et al . Emergence of Wesselsbron virus among black rat and humans in Eastern Senegal in 2013. One Health 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2017.02.001 28616499
23 Gora D , Yaya T , Jocelyn T , Didier F , Maoulouth D , Amadou S , et al . The potential role of rodents in the enzootic cycle of Rift Valley fever virus in Senegal. Microbes Infect 2000. doi: 10.1016/s1286-4579(00)00334-8 10817634
24 Diagne M , Ndione M , Di Paola N , Fall G , Bedekelabou A , Sembène P , et al . Usutu virus isolated from rodents in Senegal. Viruses 2019;11 :181. doi: 10.3390/v11020181 30795524
25 Dahmana H , Granjon L , Diagne C , Davoust B , Fenollar F , Mediannikov O . Rodents as hosts of pathogens and related zoonotic disease risk. Pathogens 2020;9 :202. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9030202 32164206
26 Fiedler LA . Rodent problems in Africa. Rodent pest management, CRC Press; 2018, p. 35–65.
27 Hánová A , Konečný A , Mikula O , Bryjová A , Šumbera R , Bryja J . Diversity, distribution, and evolutionary history of the most studied African rodents, multimammate mice of the genus Mastomys: An overview after a quarter of century of using DNA sequencing. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 2021;59 :2500–18.
28 Chidodo S , Kilawe C , Mnyone L , Vanden Broecke B , Mulungu L . Factors affecting the composition of rodent assemblages in the North Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. J Vertebr Biol 2020;69 . doi: 10.25225/jvb.20047
29 Leirs H , Verhagen R , Verheyen W . The basis of reproductive seasonally in Mastomys rats (Rodentia: Muridae) in Tanzania. J Trop Ecol 1994;10 :55–66.
30 Sluydts V , Crespin L , Davis S , Lima M , Leirs H . Survival and maturation rates of the African rodent, Mastomys natalensis: Density-dependence and rainfall. Integr Zool 2007;2 :220–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00065.x 21396039
31 Mariën J , Borremans B , Verhaeren C , Kirkpatrick L , Gryseels S , de Bellocq J , et al . Density dependence and persistence of Morogoro arenavirus transmission in a fluctuating population of its reservoir host. Journal of Animal Ecology 2020;89 :506–18. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13107 31545505
32 Leirs H , Stuyck J , Verhagen R , Verheyen W . Seasonal variation in growth of Mastomys natalensis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Morogoro, Tanzania. Afr J Ecol 1990;28 :298–306.
33 Mwanjabe P , Sirima F , Lusingu J . Crop losses due to outbreaks of Mastomys natalensis (Smith, 1834) Muridae, Rodentia, in the Lindi region of Tanzania. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 2002;49 . doi: 10.1016/S0964-8305(01)00113-5
34 Stenseth N , Leirs H , Skonhoft A , Davis S , Pech R , Andreassen H , et al . Mice, rats, and people: The bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Front Ecol Environ 2003;1 . doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0367:MRAPTB]2.0.CO;2
35 Mulungu L. Control of rodent pests in maize cultivation: the case of Africa, 2017. doi: 10.19103/as.2016.0002.18
36 Ziwa M , Matee M , Hang’Ombe B , Lyamuya E , Kilonzo B . Plague in Tanzania: An overview. Tanzan J Health Res 2013;15 . doi: 10.4314/thrb.v15i4.7 26591701
37 Holt J , Davis S , Leirs H . A model of Leptospirosis infection in an African rodent to determine risk to humans: Seasonal fluctuations and the impact of rodent control. Acta Trop 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2006.08.003 16996018
38 Sadlova J , Vojtkova B , Hrncirova K , Lestinova T , Spitzova T , Becvar T , et al . Host competence of African rodents Arvicanthis neumanni, A. niloticus and Mastomys natalensis for Leishmania major. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl 2019;8 . doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2019.01.004 30740304
39 Laudisoit A , Leirs H , Makundi R , Krasnov B . Seasonal and habitat dependence of fleas parasitic on small mammals in Tanzania. Integr Zool 2009;4 . doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2009.00150.x 21392290
40 Schwan T , Lopez J , Safronetz D , Anderson J , Fischer R , Maïga O , et al . Fleas and trypanosomes of peridomestic small mammals in sub-Saharan Mali. Parasit Vectors 2016;9 . doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1818-5 27724960
41 Brouat C , Duplantier J . Host habitat patchiness and the distance decay of similarity among gastro-intestinal nematode communities in two species of Mastomys (southeastern Senegal). Oecologia 2007;152 . doi: 10.1007/s00442-007-0680-8 17351796
42 Brouat C , Kane M , Diouf M , Bâ K , Sall-Dramé R , Duplantier J . Host ecology and variation in helminth community structure in Mastomys rodents from Senegal. Parasitology 2007;134 . doi: 10.1017/S003118200600151X 17076921
43 Ribas A , López S , Makundi R , Leirs H , de Bellocq J . Trichuris spp. (Nematoda: Trichuridae) from two rodents, Mastomys natalensis and Gerbilliscus vicinus in Tanzania. Journal of Parasitology 2013;99 . doi: 10.1645/12-151.1 23560615
44 Ribas A , Diagne C , Tatard C , Diallo M , Poonlaphdecha S , Brouat C . Whipworm diversity in West African rodents: a molecular approach and the description of Trichuris duplantieri n. sp. (Nematoda: Trichuridae). Parasitol Res 2017;116 . doi: 10.1007/s00436-017-5404-3 28210845
45 Ribas A , Makundi R , de Bellocq J . Paraconcinnum leirsi n.sp. (Trematoda: Dicrocoeliidae) from rodents in Tanzania and its phylogenetic position within the dicrocoeliids. Afr Zool 2012;47 . doi: 10.3377/004.047.0219
46 Diouf M , Diagne C , Quilichini Y , Dobigny G , Garba M , Marchand B . Pterygodermatites (mesopectines) niameyensis n. Sp. (nematoda: Rictulariidae), a parasite of mastomys natalensis (smith, 1834) (rodentia: Muridae) from Niger. Journal of Parasitology 2013;99 . doi: 10.1645/13-204.1 23902298
47 Diagne C , Charbonnel N , Henttonen H , Sironen T , Brouat C . Serological Survey of Zoonotic Viruses in Invasive and Native Commensal Rodents in Senegal, West Africa. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2017;17 . doi: 10.1089/vbz.2017.2135 28873024
48 Vanden Broecke B , Bernaerts L , Ribas A , Sluydts V , Mnyone L , Matthysen E , et al . Linking Behavior, Co-infection Patterns, and Viral Infection Risk With the Whole Gastrointestinal Helminth Community Structure in Mastomys natalensis. Front Vet Sci 2021;8 . doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.669058 34485424
49 Vanden Broecke B , Tafompa P , Mwamundela B , Bernaerts L , Ribas A , Mnyone L , et al . Drivers behind co-occurrence patterns between pathogenic bacteria, protozoa, and helminths in populations of the multimammate mouse, Mastomys natalensis. Acta Trop 2023;243 . doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.106939 37156346
50 Haikukutu L , Lyaku J , Lyimo C , Kasanga C , Kandusi S , Rahelinirina S , et al . Plague in Tanzania: first report of sylvatic plague in Morogoro region, persistence in Mbulu focus, and ongoing quiescence in Lushoto and Iringa foci. IJID Regions 2022;4 :105–10.35880003
51 Calvignac-Spencer S , Kouadio L , Couacy-Hymann E , Sogoba N , Rosenke K , Davison A , et al . Multiple DNA viruses identified in multimammate mouse (Mastomys natalensis) populations from across regions of sub-Saharan Africa. Arch Virol 2020;165 :2291–9. doi: 10.1007/s00705-020-04738-9 32754877
52 Oguge N , Rarieya M , Ondiaka P . A preliminary survey of macroparasite communities of rodents of Kahawa, Central Kenya. Belgian Journal of Zoology (Belgium) 1997;127 .
53 Weyer J , Thomas J , Leman P , Grobbelaar A , Kemp A , Paweska J . Human cases of wesselsbron disease, South Africa 2010–2011. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2013;13 . doi: 10.1089/vbz.2012.1181 23473219
54 Ndione M , Ndiaye E , Faye M , Diagne M , Diallo D , Diallo A , et al . Re-Introduction of West Nile Virus Lineage 1 in Senegal from Europe and Subsequent Circulation in Human and Mosquito Populations between 2012 and 2021. Viruses 2022;14 . doi: 10.3390/v14122720 36560724
55 Budodo R , Horumpende P , Mkumbaye S , Mmbaga B , Mwakapuja R , Chilongola J . Serological evidence of exposure to Rift Valley, Dengue and Chikungunya Viruses among agropastoral communities in Manyara and Morogoro regions in Tanzania: A community survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2020;14 :e0008061.32687540
56 Mwanyika G , Sindato C , Rugarabamu S , Rumisha S , Karimuribo E , Misinzo G , et al . Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of chikungunya, dengue, and Zika in eight districts in Tanzania. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2021;111 :271–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.08.040 34428546
57 Chipwaza B , Mugasa J , Selemani M , Amuri M , Mosha F , Ngatunga S , et al . Dengue and Chikungunya Fever among Viral Diseases in Outpatient Febrile Children in Kilosa District Hospital, Tanzania. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 8 (11 ): e3335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003335 25412076
58 Mboera L , Mweya C , Rumisha S , Tungu P , Stanley G , Makange M , et al . The Risk of Dengue Virus Transmission in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania during an Epidemic Period of 2014. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004313 26812489
59 Faustine N , Sabuni E , Ndaro A , Paul E , Chilongola J . Chikungunya, Dengue and West Nile virus Infections in Northern Tanzania. J Adv Med Med Res 2017:1–7.
60 Mitchell C , Ngasala B , Janko M , Chacky F , Edwards J , Pence B , et al . Evaluating malaria prevalence and land cover across varying transmission intensity in Tanzania using a cross-sectional survey of school-aged children. Malar J 2022;21 . doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04107-8 35264152
61 Chipwaza B , Mugasa J , Selemani M , Amuri M , Mosha F , Ngatunga S , et al . Dengue and Chikungunya fever among viral diseases in outpatient febrile children in Kilosa district hospital, Tanzania. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2014;8 :e3335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003335 25412076
62 Borremans B , Hughes N , Reijniers J , Sluydts V , Katakweba A , Mulungu L , et al . Happily together forever: temporal variation in spatial patterns and complete lack of territoriality in a promiscuous rodent. Popul Ecol 2014;56 :109–18.
63 Vanden Broecke B , Mariën J , Sabuni C , Mnyone L , Massawe A , Matthysen E , et al . Relationship between population density and viral infection: A role for personality? Ecol Evol 2019;9 :10213–24. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5541 31624546
64 Leirs H , Kirkpatrick L , Sluydts V , Sabuni C , Borremans B , Katakweba A , et al . Twenty-nine years of continuous monthly capture-mark-recapture data of multimammate mice (Mastomys natalensis) in Morogoro, Tanzania. Sci Data 2023;10 :798. doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02700-3 37952006
65 Raulino R , Thaurignac G , Keita A , Esteban A , Goumou S , Diallo R , et al . Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against multiple arboviruses in bats from Cameroon, Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2022;22 :252–62. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2021.0076 35404115
66 Amorim J , Diniz M , Cariri F , Rodrigues J , Bizerra R , Gonçalves A , et al . Protective immunity to DENV2 after immunization with a recombinant NS1 protein using a genetically detoxified heat-labile toxin as an adjuvant. Vaccine 2012;30 :837–45. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.034 22178517
67 Li Y , Counor D , Lu P , Duong V , Yu Y , Deubel V . Protective immunity to Japanese encephalitis virus associated with anti-NS1 antibodies in a mouse model. Virol J 2012;9 :1–13.22214262
68 Bailey M , Broecker F , Duehr J , Arumemi F , Krammer F , Palese P , et al . Antibodies elicited by an NS1-based vaccine protect mice against Zika virus. MBio 2019;10 :10–1128. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02861-18 30940710
69 Easterbrook J , Klein S . Immunological mechanisms mediating hantavirus persistence in rodent reservoirs. PLoS Pathog 2008;4 . doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000172 19043585
70 Spengler J , Haddock E , Gardner D , Hjelle B , Feldmann H , Prescott J . Experimental Andes Virus Infection in Deer Mice: Characteristics of Infection and Clearance in a Heterologous Rodent Host. PLoS One 2013;8 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055310 23383148
71 Borremans B. Ammonium improves elution of fixed dried blood spots without affecting immunofluorescence assay quality. Tropical Medicine and International Health 2014;19 . doi: 10.1111/tmi.12259 24387145
72 Ayouba A , Thaurignac G , Morquin D , Tuaillon E , Raulino R , Nkuba A , et al . Multiplex detection and dynamics of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV2 and the highly pathogenic human coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Journal of Clinical Virology 2020;129 :104521. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104521 32623350
73 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria 2024. Available online at https://www.R-project.org/.
74 Killick R , Eckley I . Changepoint: An R package for changepoint analysis. J Stat Softw 2014;58 . doi: 10.18637/jss.v058.i03
75 Donnelly R Jr , Abdel-Raouf F . Statistics, 3E. Penguin; 2016.
76 Piantadosi A , Kanjilal S . Diagnostic approach for arboviral infections in the united states. J Clin Microbiol 2020;58 . doi: 10.1128/JCM.01926-19 32938736
77 Dorai-Raj S. binom: Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations. R Package Version 2014;1 . doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.binom
78 Revelle W . Package “psych”—Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric and Personality Research. R Package 2015. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.psych
79 Warnes G , Bolker B , Bonebakker L , Gentleman R , Huber W , Liaw W , et al . gplots: Various R Programming Tools for Plotting Data. R Package Version 313 2022. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.gplots
80 Lenth R. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R Package Version 189 2023. https://rvlenth.github.io/emmeans/
81 Muff S , Nilsen E , O’Hara R , Nater C . Rewriting results sections in the language of evidence. Trends Ecol Evol 2022;37 . doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.10.009 34799145
82 Chandra G , Mukherjee D . Effect of climate change on mosquito population and changing pattern of some diseases transmitted by them. Advances in Animal Experimentation and Modeling, Elsevier; 2022, p. 455–60.
83 Mwanyika G , Mboera L , Rugarabamu S , Ngingo B , Sindato C , Lutwama J , et al . Dengue virus infection and associated risk factors in africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Viruses 2021;13 . doi: 10.3390/v13040536 33804839
84 Madewell Z. Arboviruses and their vectors. South Med J 2020;113 . doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001152 33005970
85 Mboya L , Nkya E , Matemba L , Kinimi E . Evidence of Chikungunya but not Dengue Virus Circulating among Febrile Patients during Low Transmission Period in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania. Int J Trop Dis Health 2020. doi: 10.9734/ijtdh/2019/v40i430236
86 Kasbergen L , Nieuwenhuijse D , de Bruin E , Sikkema R , Koopmans M . The increasing complexity of arbovirus serology: An in-depth systematic review on cross-reactivity. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2023;17 :e0011651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011651 37738270
87 Lefkowitz E , Dempsey D , Hendrickson R , Orton R , Siddell S , Smith D . Virus taxonomy: The database of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). Nucleic Acids Res 2018;46 . doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx932 29040670
88 Cho B , Jeon B , Kim J , Noh J , Kim J , Park M , et al . Expression and evaluation of Chikungunya virus E1 and E2 envelope proteins for serodiagnosis of chikungunya virus infection. Yonsei Med J 2008;49 . doi: 10.3349/ymj.2008.49.5.828 18972604
89 Chang H , Huber R , Bond P , Grad Y , Camerini D , Maurer-Stroh S , et al . Systematic analysis of protein identity between Zika virus and other arthropod-borne viruses. Bull World Health Organ 2017;95 . doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.182105 28670016
90 Fink A , Engle K , Ursin R , Tang W , Klein S . Biological sex affects vaccine efficacy and protection against influenza in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018;115 :12477–82. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805268115 30455317
91 Chrousos G. Stress and sex versus immunity and inflammation. Sci Signal 2010;3 :pe36–pe36. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.3143pe36 20940425
92 Kelly C , Stoehr A , Nunn C , Smyth K , Prokop Z . Sexual dimorphism in immunity across animals: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 2018;21 :1885–94. doi: 10.1111/ele.13164 30288910
93 Vincze O , Vágási C , Pénzes J , Szabó K , Magonyi N , Czirják G , et al . Sexual dimorphism in immune function and oxidative physiology across birds: The role of sexual selection. Ecol Lett 2022;25 :958–70. doi: 10.1111/ele.13973 35106902
94 Jacobsen H , Klein S . Sex differences in immunity to viral infections. Front Immunol. 2021; 12 : 720952 2021. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.720952 34531867
95 Sciarra F , Campolo F , Franceschini E , Carlomagno F , Venneri M . Gender-Specific Impact of Sex Hormones on the Immune System. Int J Mol Sci 2023;24 :6302. doi: 10.3390/ijms24076302 37047274
96 Wilkinson N , Chen H , Lechner M , Su M . Sex differences in immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 2022;40 :75–94. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-101320-125133 34985929
97 Mlyashimbi E , Mlyashimbi E , Mariën J , Kimaro D , Tarimo A , Machang’U R , et al . Home ranges, sex ratio and recruitment of the multimammate rat (Mastomys natalensis) in semi-arid areas in Tanzania. Mammalia 2020;84 . doi: 10.1515/mammalia-2019-0048
98 Borremans B , Leirs H , Gryseels S , Günther S , Makundi R , de Bellocq J . Presence of Mopeia virus, an African arenavirus, related to biotope and individual rodent host characteristics: Implications for virus transmission. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2011;11 . doi: 10.1089/vbz.2010.0010 21142956
99 Borremans B , Vossen R , Becker-Ziaja B , Gryseels S , Hughes N , Van Gestel M , et al . Shedding dynamics of Morogoro virus, an African arenavirus closely related to Lassa virus, in its natural reservoir host Mastomys natalensis. Sci Rep 2015;5 :1–8. doi: 10.1038/srep10445 26022445
